What made POKER take off?

Jaden

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
I know, the first thing a lot of people are going to say is that this isn't pool related but it is.....

It was not long after the movie rounders came out that poker shot off like a sky rocket and everyone and their sister thought they could win the WSOP. Then ESPN started showing it all the time and the viewership hit such numbers that other channels started carrying and then it was self fullfilling, it was inundating the airwaves so more and more people got into it.

The question therefore is, why hasn't that happened with pool. Anyone who was into pool in the mid eighties might have thought that it was going to go that way for pool after the color of money came out and was so successful and it might have.

This very fact got me thinking just now as I finished watching Rounders. I was thinking what made all of these people start taking poker seriously after watching rounders and start getting interested in watching poker on TV and the answer I came up with was two fold.

First, although the movie focused on the darker side of poker, the only people that could really be looked up to in the movie were those who either won or wanted to win the WSOP. The most important thing is that poker allows for people who don't know what they're doing to get lucky and win.

People who watch it on TV see the bad beats when people make the wrong moves and think, "Oh I can get lucky too!!!!"

Pool has done the opposite, the people who have shown pool on TV have focused only on the perfect play making even the illusion of being able to compete ridiculous this cancels people's interest.

Therefore my conclusion is that we need a catalyst like the color of money or a reality show or something and we need to start showcasing the blunders and mistakes made by the pros instead of the perfect play.


Jaden
 
My answer to the title question

In a couple of words... ANYBODY can win at poker... not so in pool.
 
Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP main event through a $39 satellite. People realized "hey I could do that !".

Edit: watchez, you're fast ! :)
 
Chris Moneymaker and . . . dumb luck. Dumb blind luck.

And big payouts.

And no skill (to some degree).
 
big-money.jpg
 
"What goes up, must come down." (David Clayton-Thomas)

TV ratings for poker matches have plummeted! Of course, it is still played by tons of people...but so is pool.

(-:
 
So, the answer for pool is simple.

Someone contact Chris Moneymaker & tell him to enter the next pro pool event. Have him fire at the cheese on every shot & let him win the tournament.

And yes poker TV ratings have plummeted but they are still higher than pool & get more airtime.
 
poker also doesnt restrict the common joe. or rather all the stupid wardrobe restrictions placed on pool. it is a dark game, embrace it. the common public sees the pros on tv having to wear a suit or tux or something and they disassociate, where with poker on the other hand, they see the guys wearing shorts and sweatshirts, a raggedy t-shirt with some sarcastic slogan and the common person can associate to that. hint hint to all the tournement and tour directors, this is not golf people, this game does not cater to the rich upper class. embrace the seady side of pocket billiards. theres no reason to require slacks and collared shirts and all that sillyness, this is a blue collar game, treat it as such and the masses will come.
 
To those who keep dropping Moneymaker's name, I just want to make one thing clear.

The guy was a GOOD tournament player. Yeah, of course they caught him getting lucky on a failed bluff or misread once or twice, but they catch the pros making the same mistakes.

No matter what anyone says, you DON'T get to the final table of the WSOP Main Event unless you are a GOOD tournament player.

Chris Moneymaker was KILLING the online tournaments before he qualified for the WSOP main event.

And my thoughts on why Rounders sparked such a huge resurgence in poker.

1. The aforementioned luck factor. Everyone now thinks they have a chance too. And to a certain extent, they DO.

2. The other side of the coin. Rounders showed people that there was a METHOD to poker. People played a lot of home poker games, losing their money left and right, before they even KNEW there was a "system" that could be learned.

I fall into group #2. I have always been a person that if I get interested in something, I read everything I can about it, and generally, become pretty good, if it is the sort of thing book learning can help teach.

I liked Rounders because I LOVED the characters. I recognized so many types that hang out in pool halls too. So, loving the movie, I figured I'd go online and see if there was any FREE poker to be played.

I found www.pokerschoolonline.com, and paid $15.00 a month and was provided with a virtual bankroll that I could lose or build, according to my skill. If there had not been a fairly inexpensive or free way to learn poker, I would not have gotten into it. I think a lot of people are like that. They are not gambling fiends, but if they can find a way to consistently beat the game, they are all about "easy money".

And as far as internet tournament poker players, keep in mind that your average internet poker player (like Moneymaker) has seen more hands, more situations, in 3-5 years of playing, than most brick and mortar pros have in their entire LIVES. So, it is no great surprise that experienced internet poker players have been having great success in brick and mortar tournaments.

Russ
 
One word: Internet.

How many online poker sites have popped up in recent years, that you can throw real money into via credit card, and withdraw real winnings from?

Nevermind the whole you-can-play-poker-naked-at-your-computer side of things. *shudder*

Now how many internet sites are there like that for pool/billiards?

Edit: Also, the fact that the only thing you have to invest in for poker, equipment-wise, is a pair of shades. And even those are optional.
 
One thing that I think helps the popularity of poker is that there are so many online sites these days where people can gamble from home. It is very easy for people to take up cards without ever leaving their homes, as opposed to going to a poolhall.

Also, cards are pretty easy to learn and it doesnt take very long to get the hang of. Pool actually takes a lot of practice to even become a decent player.
 
ScottW said:
One word: Internet.

How many online poker sites have popped up in recent years, that you can throw real money into via credit card, and withdraw real winnings from?

Nevermind the whole you-can-play-poker-naked-at-your-computer side of things. *shudder*

Now how many internet sites are there like that for pool/billiards?

Edit: Also, the fact that the only thing you have to invest in for poker, equipment-wise, is a pair of shades. And even those are optional.
Click to expand...




Beat me to it.:)
 
Tv exposure. WSOP started on the travel channel and was shown during reasonable hours,
Whens the last time youve seen a current pool tournament being shown and being shown at a decent hour. Not 4 am or 8 am.
Out of sight out of mind. We need to be in their faces more and arousing their couriosity. and speed pool and trick shots dont help either. If anything they make it worse

and yes any joe can get lucky in a poker tourney and be in the main event. In pool ur not gonna luck ur way into the finals of the US open. It takes skill
 
Jaden said:
I know, the first thing a lot of people are going to say is that this isn't pool related but it is.....

It was not long after the movie rounders came out that poker shot off like a sky rocket and everyone and their sister thought they could win the WSOP. Then ESPN started showing it all the time and the viewership hit such numbers that other channels started carrying and then it was self fullfilling, it was inundating the airwaves so more and more people got into it.

The question therefore is, why hasn't that happened with pool. Anyone who was into pool in the mid eighties might have thought that it was going to go that way for pool after the color of money came out and was so successful and it might have.

This very fact got me thinking just now as I finished watching Rounders. I was thinking what made all of these people start taking poker seriously after watching rounders and start getting interested in watching poker on TV and the answer I came up with was two fold.

First, although the movie focused on the darker side of poker, the only people that could really be looked up to in the movie were those who either won or wanted to win the WSOP. The most important thing is that poker allows for people who don't know what they're doing to get lucky and win.

People who watch it on TV see the bad beats when people make the wrong moves and think, "Oh I can get lucky too!!!!"

Pool has done the opposite, the people who have shown pool on TV have focused only on the perfect play making even the illusion of being able to compete ridiculous this cancels people's interest.

Therefore my conclusion is that we need a catalyst like the color of money or a reality show or something and we need to start showcasing the blunders and mistakes made by the pros instead of the perfect play.


Jaden
Click to expand...


Financial Backing with lots of Dollars.
 
TXsouthpaw said:
and yes any joe can get lucky in a poker tourney and be in the main event. In pool ur not gonna luck ur way into the finals of the US open. It takes skill
Click to expand...

Oh come on now! You're comparing apples to orangutangs..

The main event is NOT comparable to the finals of the U.S. Open. It is simply comparable to the ENTIRE U.S. Open... Both are OPEN events, where ANYBODY can plunk down their money and enter.

You wanna compare apples to apples? Fine. An amateur getting to the final table of the WSOP is comparable to a run-of-the-mill A player getting to the U.S. Open finals. It just ain't gonna happen.

A decent amateur can win a $20 weekend bar 8 ball tournament, just like a decent amateur poker player might win a 100 person multitable tournament. Neither one usually has much of a chance at higher levels.

If pool had a qualifier system where 10 players put up $50 apiece to get into the U.S. Open, then THAT would be comparable to the supersatellite system qualifiers into the WSOP main event, but it doesn't. Why? Because pool is not popular enough, that's why.

Don't hate poker just because it is more popular to the masses. Your statement that some hack poker player can get through thousands of good players at the WSOP and win, is just WRONG. Statisically, if they are making bad decisions, them bucking the odds compounds with every hand they play, and by the end of the tournament, they have played thousands of hands, making it statiscally almost impossible to win.

Russ
 
Russ Chewning said:
Oh come on now! You're comparing apples to orangutangs..

The main event is NOT comparable to the finals of the U.S. Open. It is simply comparable to the ENTIRE U.S. Open... Both are OPEN events, where ANYBODY can plunk down their money and enter.

You wanna compare apples to apples? Fine. An amateur getting to the final table of the WSOP is comparable to a run-of-the-mill A player getting to the U.S. Open finals. It just ain't gonna happen.

A decent amateur can win a $20 weekend bar 8 ball tournament, just like a decent amateur poker player might win a 100 person multitable tournament. Neither one usually has much of a chance at higher levels.

If pool had a qualifier system where 10 players put up $50 apiece to get into the U.S. Open, then THAT would be comparable to the supersatellite system qualifiers into the WSOP main event, but it doesn't. Why? Because pool is not popular enough, that's why.

Don't hate poker just because it is more popular to the masses. Your statement that some hack poker player can get through thousands of good players at the WSOP and win, is just WRONG. Statisically, if they are making bad decisions, them bucking the odds compounds with every hand they play, and by the end of the tournament, they have played thousands of hands, making it statiscally almost impossible to win.

Russ
Click to expand...

Russ,
Your very right...but...there almost always is a but. The average guy can play and still believe he can get there like a pro. Throw Joe average on a pool table and in 3 minutes they realize how tough it is.

I think that golf and pool are better comparisons. Everyone that plays golf knows how tough the game is. I'm a firm believer that the whole equipment thing and $ around it is fuels a lot of the golf industry and thus prize funds....but that's another story.

Nick
 
Nick B said:
Russ,
Your very right...but...there almost always is a but. The average guy can play and still believe he can get there like a pro. Throw Joe average on a pool table and in 3 minutes they realize how tough it is.

I think that golf and pool are better comparisons. Everyone that plays golf knows how tough the game is. I'm a firm believer that the whole equipment thing and $ around it is fuels a lot of the golf industry and thus prize funds....but that's another story.

Nick
Click to expand...

Nick,

I completely agree. I was taking offense to Txsouthpaw's statement:

and yes any joe can get lucky in a poker tourney and be in the main event. In pool ur not gonna luck ur way into the finals of the US open. It takes skill

Where he DIRECTLY compares "getting lucky" and getting into the WSOP main event, and REACHING THE FINALS of a U.S. Open.

It's an absolutely ridiculous comparison. I see a MUCH MORE APT comparison as someone winning a regional qualifier in pool, and "getting into" the U.S. Open. They're still not gonna have much of a chance.

Doesn't the U.S. Amateur Championship winner get a free entry to the U.S. Open every year? Last I heard, none of them have won it.

I just hate it when people criticize other games simply because they have a successful system in place.

Hey Txsouthpaw, if the way pool was doing it was so great...The pros would be making a lot more money, eh?

Russ
 
What is your definition of an amateur poker player?

Varkonyi?
McBride?
Dannenmann?
Goldfarb?

Russ Chewning said:
You wanna compare apples to apples? Fine. An amateur getting to the final table of the WSOP is comparable to a run-of-the-mill A player getting to the U.S. Open finals. It just ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top